3 ms·
The article discusses the (highly speculative) hypothesis that eukaryotes arose from a virus merging with an archaeal ancestor to form a nucleus. If the hypothe
by jibal 10mo ago
The article discusses the (highly speculative) hypothesis that eukaryotes arose from a virus merging with an archaeal ancestor to form a nucleus. If the hypothesis is false (it is widely believed that eukaryotes arose from a joining of archaea and bacteria, not archaea and virii) then "an archaeal ancestor" doesn't even have a referent.
The LUCA is the common ancestor of bacteria and archaea. That would have existed far earlier, as neither of those are eukaryotes.
- vintermann 10mo agoI'd like to take the opportunity to post this classic about the plural of virus: https://www.ofb.net/~jlm/virus.html https://www.ofb.net/~jlm/virus.html More because it's funny than that it matters.
- jibal 10mo agoYeah, I knew this but had a bout of brain flatus.
- gus_massa 10mo ago> it is widely believed that eukaryotes arose from a joining of archaea and bacteria, not archaea and virii IIUC the join with the bacteria is the explanation of the mitochondria (and later chloroplast). But it does not explain the nuclei that is weird too. Is it possible something like this? Archaeal + Virus = Pre-Eukaryote (extinct?) Pre-Eukaryote + Bacteria = Eukaryote (including animals, fungi and plants) Eukaryote + other Bacteria = Plants (Or swap the first two steps.)
- jibal 10mo ago> IIUC the join with the bacteria is the explanation of the mitochondria (and later chloroplast). But it does not explain the nuclei that is weird too. You're right ... my mistake.